Vandal ripped out the CCTV camera of vulnerable woman

8:30am Wednesday 11th July 2012 in News By Laura Smith

A VANDAL tore down a CCTV camera a day after it was installed to make an elderly woman feel safe.

Maynul Hussain admitted ripping down the camera after mistakingly calling at the 83-year-old’s home in Benfleet and realising he was being filmed.

The family of the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, only installed the camera the previous day, after a burglar broke into her house and exposed himself in January.

Hussain, 19, of Dove Drive, Benfleet, pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage when he appeared in Southend Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

Glenda Thompson, prosecuting, said: “Her family decided they would install CCTV, so if there were a return of the offender or any other incident, it would be captured on CCTV. Her son-in-law installed the CCTV, but the following day this defendant’s face was captured on it.

“He appeared at the front door of the address, appeared to tamper with the CCTV and moments later the picture disappeared.”

The court heard unemployed Hussain had been drinking in a nearby park, before deciding to call on a friend called Jason.

He knocked on the woman’s door, but was told no one of that name lived there.

When he realised he was being filmed, he tore down the camera and threw it into a ditch.

He was fined £135, £105 in court costs and ordered to pay £28.99 compensation for the damage to the camera.

Emma Grewock, defending, said: “Perhaps the only aggravating matter in this situation is the lady is elderly, and thus potentially vulnerable.”

Police confirmed a man had broken into the same address on January 23 and exposed himself.

Officers later arrested a man on suspicion of sexual assault, but released him without charge because of a lack of evidence.

An Essex Police spokesman said: “It remains an undetected crime.”

Comments(17)

SpiffSpaff84 says...
9:30am Wed 11 Jul 12

So basically shes been the victim of 2 crimes and both times the criminal escaped punishment

Report this post »

APR says...
9:56am Wed 11 Jul 12

Well at least the camera did what it was designed for.

Just a shame that more thought wasn't given to it's positioning.

Report this post »

A Dad says...
10:23am Wed 11 Jul 12

'Calling on a friend and knocking on the wrong door'.....I don't believe a word of it.
These people go knocking on doors looking for an opportunity to rob old or vulnerable people.

Report this post »

R85 says...
11:07am Wed 11 Jul 12

Presumably the only amount that goes to the victim is the £28.99 compo for the camera costs!? WTF if wrong with this country? So the courts think her sons time installing it is free then? They think that getting somebody in to install it free then? They should be made to pay extra – that’s not compensation at all it’s just the cost of the camera! So basically the womans ended up with having to have a camera reinstalled with no financial help! Nice country we live in – I should be a criminal scum bag! Why the fk not ffs… Irritating

Report this post »

knightmare14 says...
2:01pm Wed 11 Jul 12

Sounds like he was the Flasher who had come back for another go! Cut it's bits off = problem solved!

Report this post »

Last Poster says...
5:40pm Wed 11 Jul 12

Emma Grewock, defending, said: “Perhaps the only aggravating matter in this situation is the lady is elderly, and thus potentially vulnerable.”
I take it that is that moron's defender. Has she got that dead wrong! I am truly fed up with these "do anything for money" defenders. Why should they be allowed to defend the indefensible. That camera may have been the only thing that saved this elderly woman from god only knows what. His very name offends me. Who knows how many years of this ladies' life are sacrificed to these kinds of threat. Do you think she will just get on with her life and forget the threat? Still, she can always go into a council care home. Oh no, that's right, the council is after closing those now. Oh well, she had a good innings I suppose!

Report this post »

whataday says...
6:54pm Wed 11 Jul 12

The git was obviously up to no good otherwise he wouldn't have torn down the camera
As for Emma Greenock his defence solicitor saying "Perhaps the only aggravating matter in this situation is the lady is elderly" - she should be held up for contempt. The aggravating matters are that she came up with such a despicable comment, the defendant told bare-faced lies, and if he wasn't up to no good then why did he feel the need to destroy the CCTV. and the sentence is too light.

Report this post »

ddtthundersley says...
7:58pm Wed 11 Jul 12

Have a look at the **** facebook account!!

Report this post »

ddtthundersley says...
8:00pm Wed 11 Jul 12

ddtthundersley wrote:
Have a look at the **** facebook account!!
Wannabe gangster with a touch of racist thrown in!!

Report this post »

ddtthundersley says...
8:05pm Wed 11 Jul 12

ddtthundersley wrote:
ddtthundersley wrote:
Have a look at the **** facebook account!!
Wannabe gangster with a touch of racist thrown in!!
And according to his facebook profile he hates the police..... wonder why!!

Report this post »

Sean4u says...
8:22pm Wed 11 Jul 12

135 quid!

Container, seats, pedals, generators, energy meters, he could have been sentenced to 20KWh to have been 'repaid' on consecutive days with a minimum 'ride' of 1 hour:

http://www.wlsam.com
/Article.asp?id=2490
867&spid=

Come on, you know it makes sense!

I expect he was defended by a duty solicitor or similar - I'd be surprised to hear he hired an expensive one. We have an adversarial legal system, so someone must speak for and someone must speak against, while it's someone else' job to pass judgement.

Imagine it was your job to speak 'for' - you would have to discharge your obligation towards your post or find another career. I don't envy the defending role in cases such as this one, although my eyes also narrowed a little at the implication that the victim's age was an unfortunate and unforeseen coincidence.

Report this post »

Last Poster says...
9:58pm Wed 11 Jul 12

Looked at his pics on Facebook. Pity they didn't use those for a character reference! Seems like a peace-loving lad, with a chip bigger than the shard on his shoulder! If you take notice of his bragging, he hates police, he hates whites and he only loves one person.

Report this post »

Trainman says...
11:45pm Wed 11 Jul 12

HAD it been me, or another with an English name, we WOULD have been jailed, and I am NOT a racist in ANY way.

Report this post »

thesouthendone says...
5:02pm Fri 13 Jul 12

Surely if someone reports him to the police he would get arrested for insiting racial hatered????

Report this post »

thesouthendone says...
5:45pm Fri 13 Jul 12

I don't have facebook but if someone where to get screenshots of this guys page and forward them onto the police station that they are deeply offended then this guy will get arrested and his punishment will be a lot harsher than what he got for the camera offence. He deserves it, he deserves a lot worse.

Report this post »

Virtuallintu says...
8:22pm Fri 13 Jul 12

He's a class act and no mistake. Doubtless his family are so proud of him.

Report this post »

termite1944 says...
6:30pm Sun 15 Jul 12

So does the £28.99 cover all the costs of reinstalling the camera?

He should be sent to a boot camp!

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree